California Moves to Phase Out Unnecessary Uses of “Forever Chemicals”

UPDATE, OCTOBER 14, 2025: Unfortunately, Governor Newsom vetoed a bill that would have reduced the health and economic burdens of harmful PFAS (“forever chemicals”) in California (see below) and that passed both houses of the legislature by large margins with bipartisan support. The rationale offered is anemic and overstated: The veto message misleadingly points to concerns about the availability of cookware on shelves and the timeline for the transition. But the truth is, there are myriad alternatives already available—and they are available at the same price points. Other states, like Minnesota, that have already phased out PFAS in these product categories are demonstrating that there are no ill effects from the phaseout, and the bill even gave the industry five years to come into compliance in California.

The governor’s action represents a step back for California. It’s unfortunate that misinformation, greed, and disregard for public health by some in the cookware industry have set back a policy that would have protected 40 million Californians. The state's residents are ill-served by this veto, but the bill has already moved the conversation forward; people are increasingly aware of the health risks of PFAS and turning away from PFAS-laden products for their kitchens and homes. NRDC and our partners (encompassing environmental, health, and environmental justice groups, as well as water agencies) remain committed to raising awareness about the risks and dangers of PFAS and working with environmental champions to eliminate their use wherever possible. Our drinking water and health demand nothing less.

In the early hours of September 13, the California legislature passed a bill to phase out PFAS in six product categories: cookware, cleaning products, ski wax, dental floss, food packaging, and children’s products not covered by previous laws. The bill, SB 682 (Ben Allen), is cosponsored by a broad coalition of health, environmental, and public sector groups: NRDC, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, the California Association of Sanitation Agencies, Clean Water Action, and the Environmental Working Group.   

A little past 1 a.m., the Senate voted 30–5 on concurrence. The bill had passed the assembly earlier the previous night; the final vote was 45–21. The bill now goes to the governor, who has until October 12 to sign it.   

The bill’s passage builds on significant previous action by California and other states on PFAS and stands in stark contrast to the announcement earlier in the week from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that it was moving to undo drinking water standards for four PFAS chemicals set in the previous administration, plus delay the implementation of the remaining two standards.   

The products covered by this bill have already been phased out in multiple other states, and safer alternative products are easily available for each of the categories at comparable cost to consumers. Additionally, manufacturers have until 2028 for most products and until 2030 for cookware to meet the law’s requirements. Cookware companies continue to oppose the bill despite having a longer phaseout period than other products and despite already producing alternatives.  

Cookware industry claims are misleading 

The cookware industry claims that PTFE (also known as Teflon) is different from other PFAS and should be treated differently. However, independent, non-industry scientists, including those from California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control, include PTFE in the definition of PFAS because of the harms that it—and all other PFAS—poses. (See below for the health impacts and societal costs of PFAS.) Multiple previous California laws, laws in more than 20 other states, and the European Union use a definition of PFAS that includes PTFE. This is because PTFE is made from and breaks down into other PFAS that are harmful for drinking water and health and because, as scientists note, “the emissions associated with their production, use, and disposal result in a high likelihood for human exposure as long as uses are not restricted.”  

PTFE coating and production facilities have been estimated to be responsible for approximately 80 percent of PFOA and PFOA-like PFAS that have been released to the environment. PFOA, which is found in virtually all of our bodies, is among the best studied of PFAS and has been strongly linked to multiple serious health effects, including cancer.  

In addition, PTFE microplastics are being found in people and have been shown to have reproductive health impacts. Consumer use of PTFE-coated pans can also cause “Teflon flu,” a condition suspected to impact hundreds of people per year in the United States, leaving them with fever, chills, and headaches. 

Moreover, multiple alternatives to PTFE cookware are widely available at comparable prices, including stainless steel, carbon steel, cast iron, ceramic nonstick, glassware, and ceramics. Minnesota has already implemented its phaseout of PFAS in cookware, and affordable, effective, cookware is still widely available in the state. Maine and Colorado are set to phase out PFAS in cookware at the beginning of 2026, Rhode Island in 2027, and Connecticut and Vermont in 2028. Maine has proposed to reject the cookware industry’s request for an exemption under its law, citing the availability of alternatives. 

It is also worth noting that many of the chefs who have advocated against SB 682 have conflicts of interest, given that they promote their own lines of PTFE-coated cookware, and the companies that produce PTFE products produce the alternatives as well.  

Drinking water, health, and environmental impacts of PFAS products 

Due to their widespread, mostly unchecked use over several decades and their extreme resistance to breakdown, PFAS contamination is a global environmental health threat. PFAS are linked to numerous health impacts, from cancers to decreased fertility and hormone disruption to liver disease to developmental harm and immune system suppression, including interference with the efficacy of vaccines. The health impacts from PFAS exposure are particularly problematic for children who have elevated exposures to PFAS and whose bodies are still developing making them more susceptible to the harms caused by PFAS.  

More than 99 percent of people in the United States have PFAS in their bodies—in California alone, it is estimated that 25 million people are served by water systems with PFAS contamination. PFAS are expensive to treat in water, putting a heavy economic burden on water agencies and rate payers. California has already spent $571 million on PFAS cleanup, with an additional $1.13 billion in planned projects. Furthermore, it is estimated that it will take $161 million to $217 million annually for California to meet federal drinking water standards.   

While cleanup of drinking water is essential, it’s not a cure-all. PFAS extracted from drinking water eventually end up in the environment again, restarting the cycle of contamination, especially since destruction of PFAS is difficult and very expensive. Yet, the impacts to our healthcare system associated with PFAS are even more staggering, conservatively estimated at $5.5 billion to $8.7 billion annually in California.  

Multiple industry groups have gone neutral on the bill. Cookware companies have been the main exception despite having a longer phaseout period of five years and despite already producing the alternatives like stainless steel, ceramic nonstick, cast iron, and other materials.  

SB 682 builds upon previous California laws to phase out PFAS in textiles, firefighting foam, certain children’s products, paper-based food-packaging, cosmetics, and menstrual products. It will help protect the state’s drinking water and its nearly 40 million residents from exposure to harmful PFAS chemicals. It will also help reduce the enormous costs to the state from PFAS pollution. Given the ready availability of cost-comparable alternatives in each of the covered product categories, it’s not hard to see why the legislature passed the bill. We hope Governor Newsom will sign the law and help secure the bill’s protections for California.